Well, actually, I have faith that your position on god is 100% wrong. Yes, exactly the point. Atheists have faith that God does not exist. Atheists have an opinion on God, not any fact on God. A lack of evidence is not a fact of no evidence, it is simply an absence of evidence. You practice the religion of Atheism. I have no problem with that at all, but why do you have a problem with what others believe? I can understand having issues with the actions of others, but this country was built on the principle of freedom of thinking and freedom of personal faith.
On similar lines, a nice piece from Heather MacDonald: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OGYxNDFiMzdiZjZjMDExZjYxYmUxODExMzBkYmUyYmQ= Excerpt: Perhaps when believers speak of Godâs âlove,â they use the term in a way that has nothing to do with ordinary usage. Novak maybe implies as much when he states: âWhat is difficult to believe is that any one of us . . . knows more than God does about His love for every individual.â Godâs âloveâ is different from human love; it includes the capacity to foresee and watch the destruction of oneâs children and not intervene. But then why not use a different word entirely â âcallousness,â say. At the very least, if we are going to continue to use ordinary words in counterintuitive ways to refer to God, we should give them some sort of diacritical marker to let listeners know that the words they are hearing donât mean what they ordinarily mean. One could speak of âG-love,â for instance, to distinguish it from ordinary human love. As MacDonald points out, the idea that God "loves" everyone is patently silly because such a notion is falsifiable; we can observe reality and see that it is not true. The one point where I quibble with atheists is in denial of the possibility that a first mover exists. It is, in fact, possible that a first mover of some sort exists. It is even possible that a first mover has a Plan, with a capital P, for the universe. However--and it is a very BIG however--even if a first mover exists, reality still holds. Testable claims should be tested, and logic should be upheld, and by this light all the testable claims of popular religion fall short. There is no clear evidence that God intervenes in people's lives, for example, and therefore it is not logical to believe in a first mover that intervenes. There is no evidence that a hypothetical first mover cares about human beings individually; in fact it is pure speculation to think He / She / It gives a shit about the human race at all. Therefore it is not logical to believe in a first mover who has a special concern for every living person. Science cannot go beyond the boundaries of the closed system--it cannot look behind the big bang--but all assertions regarding God that amount to testable claims submit themselves to the domain of science. To make assertions regarding an intervening or caring God is to come into science's house. If you say prayer works, that is a testable claim. If one says God cares about human individuals, that is an obliquely testable claim too. If one says the bible is scientifically accurate, that is a testable claim also. Even the fruit of the holy spirit is something of a testable claim, as it is possible to compare the general behavior and attitudes of churched vs unchurched. And by all these tests, popular religion fails and fails miserably. Every testable claim that religion inadvertently offers up is beat to a pulp... steamrolled as it were. So is it still possible to suggest that a hypothetical first mover "loves" humanity? Not in an individual sense. Not while remaining logical. The universe cares for human life about as much as you or I care for dead houseflies. If the universe cares for life at all, it is probably on a scale of planets (or maybe galaxies) and a scope of eons. I am to the world as a single digestive enzyme in my stomach is to me. Or perhaps a single stretch of molecules within that enzyme. Part of something, yes; worthy of individual attention from the master planner, if there is one? I highly doubt it. But is it possible to construct a metanarrative that is not shattered by science and does not require straying into fantasyland? Say, an evolutionary metanarrative in which a hypothetical first mover thinks in terms of eons, and cares nothing for individual life, and brings about a purpose through processes of evolution and the rise of consciousness in sentient life forms via coherent natural processes? Yes, it is possible. It is not possible to confirm that this is the real story, but something like it would at least have the virtue of being theoretically consistent with reality as know it. If one truly submits to logic and reason, it is absolutely necessary to let go of the demonstrably false idea of an intervening and loving God. But it isn't absolutely necessary to believe that we are here for no reason at all. It is possible that the metanarrative is far bigger and grander than we imagined. And even if we are here for no reason at all--a possibility that cannot be ruled out any more than a first mover can--then that tabula rasa state gives us the freedom to construct a metanarrative of our own choosing... and to do so logically, without violating basic tenets of reality. One of the biggest problems with atheism, or biggest challenges for atheism I should say, is coming up with a positive metanarrative to replace what is torn down. Religion serves multiple purposes, and has done so since the beginning. If you tear down a man's religion, but offer him nothing to take its place, then that man is left hopeless and adrift, perhaps suicidal even. It is instructive to note that most of those who reject religion have their own alternative metanarratives in place, or build them during the transition from religious to non-religious, finding their own reasons to live and love and pursue excellence apart from a book of stories handed down. For example, pursuit of truth and reason as a noble ideal in itself is a common foundation for those who shun religion. But for many people, truth as a life-motivating ideal is too cold and too abstract. The average joe has spent far too long wandering in the fever swamps of rationalization and self-gratification to suddenly rise up and recognize the beauty of logic and honesty for their own sakes. To those atheists who see challenging the poisonous comforts of religion as their greatest mission, isn't that really only half the story? Isn't the real goal to spread an appreciation for truth and reason, and not just leave the masses disillusioned and empty? If you kick out a man's crutch but do not offer him another, he will hate you for it. Perhaps try helping him with his bum leg before exhorting him to walk free. (If he is foaming at the mouth, though, by all means shoot him.) Just some thoughts...
Right over your head. What do you expect from a retarded product of a big foot raping? "A lack of evidence is not a fact of no evidence, it is simply an absence of evidence." Exactly, and an absence of evidence, rationally requires a lack of belief. Why would anyone believe in anything with a complete absence of evidence? Oh yeah, that stupid blind belief thing called "faith" Haha. Im sorry your big foot daddy abandoned you in your childhood and prevented you from developing any rational reasoning skills. The theist chooses belief in the absence of evidence. In other words, they are irrational, or retarded furry products of a big foot raping. Believing in god with an absence of evidence is not logical. Atheists lack a belief in god because there is a lack of evidence. Perfectly logical.
Ugh Z. "A - Theism". Break that down. Know what that means? "Atheist religion" is a contradiction. "A - theism" - literally translates to "without theism". Do you know anything about atheism? Apparently not. That would explain a lot. Its ok, im not interested in arguing with an illogical product of a big foot raping, who believes in god with a complete absence of evidence. Good luck with your tooth fairy.
Good post archimedes. Possibly the best thing an atheist can do is kick the crutch away. Ex-crutch users usually discover they don't indeed have a bum leg, finding great benefit and fulfillment when a foot also wakes up, enabling use of all their integrity which standing on both feet provides. Your reference to Heather MacDonald is very appropriate I think, and the point raised about misuse of words might well be applicable in the context of people positioning the word God in place of the meaning - first mover. I think your quibble is a justifiable one, although it is not at all clear why there should be any need for a first mover at all, let alone why it should require any kind of intelligence. What would be so bad about us all just being the eventual result of uncaused quantum farts, and not of first movers with a plan? One intriguing aspect on which I think you touch, is where wholly uncaused natural occurrence, without any design or purpose, has in that very nature of things, the wherewithal to unintentionally find out what it is. Should it be necessary , let's hope that it can eventually get past the stage where the word God is used in a counterintuitive way when referring to the ordinary word reality.
Proof #13 - Take a look at slavery Here are ten passages from the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's position on slavery: Genesis chapter 17, verse 12: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised. In this passage God understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves. Exodus chapter 12 verse 43: The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. God again shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment. Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1: Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation. Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20: If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Not only does God condone slavery, but he is also completely comfortable with the concept of beating your slaves, as long as you don't kill them. Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32: If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned. Not only does God condone slavery, but here God places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word. Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10: No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food. Here God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves, and that he is completely happy with that concept. Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Here God states where you may purchase your slaves, and clearly specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down. Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2: Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well. Here Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery. Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner. Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22: Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily... Here God shows that he is in complete acceptance of a slave's position, and encourages slaves to work hard. This sentiment is repeated in Titus, chapter 2 verse 9: Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity. Once again God shows that he is quite enamored of slavery. God loves slavery If the Bible is written by God, and these are the words of the Lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: God is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept. As you can see, these slavery passages present us with an immense contradiction: On the one hand, we all know that slavery is an outrage and a moral abomination. As a result, slavery is now completely illegal throughout the developed world. On the other hand, most Christians claim that the Bible came from God. In God's Word, the "creator of the universe" states that slavery is perfectly acceptable. Beating your slaves is fine. Enslaving children is fine. Separating slave families is fine. According to the Bible, we should all be practicing slavery today. The intensity of this contradiction is remarkable. It shows us quite clearly that God is imaginary. If God were to exist, and if he were playing any role whatsoever on our planet, he would eliminate this connection between himself and slavery. There is no way that a loving God would allow himself to be perceived as condoning and encouraging slavery like this. Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: You, as a rational human being, know that slavery is wrong. You know it. That is why every single developed nation in the world has made slavery completely illegal. Human beings make slavery illegal, in direct defiance of God's word, because we all know with complete certainty that slavery is an abomination. What does your common sense now tell you about a Bible that supports slavery in both the Old and the New Testaments? Given the fact that the Bible clearly condones slavery, your common sense should be telling you that God is imaginary.
Understanding the Rationalizations Many believers will argue that God had to talk this way in the Old Testament in order to "fit in" with the dominant culture. This, of course, is silly. In Christian mythology, God is the one who created humans and human culture. In addition, a God that condones the beating of slaves and the enslavement of children at any time is an abomination. A believer might say, "Well, all of those verses are from the Old Testament and no longer apply because of Jesus." This line of rationalization prompts several obvious questions. Why would the Old Testament still be printed in the Bible if Jesus overturned it? Why would God EVER tell us to beat slaves? The most important thing that this line of rationalization misses is that Jesus specifically states that the laws of the Old Testament still stand. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus says: For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Then he goes on to say: Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. According to Jesus, the Old Testament is alive and well. According to Isaiah 40:8, "the word of our God stands forever." The notion that these old testament verses no longer apply is completely untrue according to the Bible. Christians imagine that they "no longer apply" as a way of rationalizing their religion. Other believers rationalize that God did not write these slavery passages in the Bible. The Bible was somehow corrupted by slave-loving men. In that case, the obvious question to ask yourself is this: If the Bible has been corrupted, how can we possibly know which parts of the Bible came from God and which parts were inserted by primitive men? You have absolutely no way to know. It is when you start thinking about the Bible in this way that you understand something very important about the Bible. Either the entire Bible really is God's Word, or the entire Bible was written by primitive men with absolutely no input from God. Here is the reason for this very strong dividing line: If part of the Bible came from God and part came from primitive men, you do not know which is which. You dod not know if Jesus really is resurrected, or if that's just a make-believe story inserted by primitive men. How do you know if God wrote the Ten Commandments or not? If any part of the Bible has been polluted by primitive men, you have to reject the whole thing. There is no way to know who wrote what, so the entire book is invalid. There really is no middle ground and the Bible has to be an all-or-nothing book. Either the entire Bible came from God, or none of it did. With this all-or-nothing reality about the Bible now understood, you can see that there are only two possible explanations for the slavery passages in the Bible: The Bible is right, and God loves slavery. The entire Bible is God's word, so these slavery passages must be God's word too. The laws in the United States and other modern nations that make slavery illegal defy God's word. Justice Scalia should be promoting slavery in exactly the same way that he promotes the Ten Commandments. The Bible condones slavery because the Bible was written by slave-owning men, not by God. God is imaginary. Chances are that you have a problem with the first explanation. God would not champion the abomination that is slavery. We all know that. Therefore, what you are left with is the second explanation.
The problem with "ex-crutch users" who never resolved their childhood wounding, is they walk with a awful miserable limp and curse their so called "accident" while being so full of piss and vinegar, resentments, and rage against those who are still happily walking with a "crutch" that they stay stuck in the "accident."
theists are not happy just using their crutch. they want to force everyone else to use their crutch. they cant stand seeing people live happy productive lives without a crutch so they threaten them with eternal torture for not using the crutch.